ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ІНТЕГРАЦІЇ ТЕХНОЛОГІЙ ШТУЧНОГО ІНТЕЛЕКТУ В ОРГАНІЗАЦІЮ ДІЯЛЬНОСТІ ПРЕДСТАВНИЦЬКИХ ОРГАНІВ ВЛАДИ В УМОВАХ ЦИФРОВОЇ ДЕМОКРАТІЇ

The article analyzes the specific features of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into the organization of representative bodies’ activities within the framework of digital democracy. Based on the methodological prin-ciples of neo-institutionalism, it is demonstrated that the successful integra-tion of AI into parliamentary activity cannot be reduced merely to the techni-cal implementation of algorithms. Rather, it entails a profound institutional transformation requiring a shift in political thinking and the cultivation of a culture of continuous innovation, combined with the primacy of human will and political responsibility. It is substantiated that data quality constitutes a decisive factor in the success of any managerial (parliamentary organization) or political (parliamentary decision-making) process based on AI. Inaccurate or irrelevant data inevitably produce contradictory and unreliable outcomes. Therefore, parliamentary institutions must rigorously evaluate their data sets, ensuring representativeness and reliability. Equally important is the volume of data, as the scope determines the diversity and comprehensiveness of informa-tion that the system can generate. This is particularly relevant for parliaments that possess high-quality data but lack sufficiently extensive and up-to-date da-tasets to support decision-making through AI technologies. The establishment of data governance frameworks and the definition of ethical principles regu-lating the development and application of AI in parliamentary activity are of critical importance. Eliminating bias, ensuring transparency and explainability, and safeguarding confidentiality are indispensable conditions for strengthening trust in algorithmic systems employed within representative institutions. The analyzed cases of AI use in parliamentary practice reveal both commonali-ties and significant differences, reflecting diverse institutional models of digital transformation. Common features include the application of AI to optimize ad-ministrative processes, reduce staff workload, and enhance efficiency—whether through transcription of parliamentary proceedings in Greece, the development of language models in Denmark, or assistance in speechwriting in the United Kingdom. In each case, emphasis is placed on ethical oversight and risk man-agement, particularly regarding bias, accuracy, copyright, and privacy protec-tion, underscoring the universal ethical dimension of AI integration. Another shared characteristic is the recognition that technologies cannot fully replace human activity but serve as auxiliary instruments requiring constant supervi-sion and validation of outputs. Differences manifest in technical and political priorities, particularly in the degree of institutional formalization of digital democracy technologies. The success of AI implementation in parliamentary practice is also determined by the extent of alignment between the will and interests of officials responsible for innovation, administrative staff, and parliamentarians—the primary benefi-ciaries of this process. Digital democracy requires legislators to comprehend the ongoing transformations, remain open to modernization, and demonstrate curiosity, creativity, and resilience in the face of challenges. This implies that technological innovations cannot be perceived as neutral tools but must be in-tegrated into the political culture of parliamentary activity.